ross-the last king of edessa

STEVEN K. ROSS

THE LAST KING OF EDESSA: NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE MIDDLE

EUPHRATES

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 97 (1993) 187–206

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

187

THE LAST KING OF EDESSA:NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE MIDDLE EUPHRATES1

The preliminary publication of a batch of 21 documents from the Middle Euphrates datingto the middle of the third century of the Christian era increases significantly the number ofsuch documents known from the Levant, and offers potential for a better understanding ofthe social, economic and political history of that place and time. The documents, whoseprecise provenance is unknown, are mostly in Greek but include two in Syriac. One of thesehas been published in full, and the other in part, by Javier Teixidor. In addition to theirlanguage these two differ from the others also in being written on parchment (most of theothers are on papyrus) and in showing the political influence of the metropolis of Edessa.They antedate slightly the parchment from Edessa which was discovered at Dura-Europosduring the American-French excavations there and was, until now, the oldest known piece ofwriting in Syriac on a perishable material.2

These two Syriac documents, thus, enable the student to check and refine theories aboutthis very disturbed period in the life of the Roman Empire, and specifically, about Edessaitself.3 Analysis of the documents largely vindicates the theories of the first publishers of DP28 conceming Edessene political history and the brief reestablishment of Edessa's nativemonarchy under Gordian III, and casts some doubt on details of more recent accounts ofGordian's policy and activities on the eastern frontier. The documents also make possiblesome observations concerning the Edessene calendar and legal archival practice in the city.

1 In addition to the standard abbreviations for scholarly reference works, this paper uses the followingshortened fomis of reference:

Feissel and Gascou = Denis Feissel and Jean Gascou, Documents d'archives romains inédits du MoyenEuphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.), CRAI 1989, 535-61;

Derniers rois = Javier Teixidor, Les derniers rois d´Édesse d'après deux nouveaux documents syriaques,ZPE 76, 1989, 219-22;

Deux documents = Idem, Deux documents syriaques du IIIe siècle après J.-C., provenant du MoyenEuphrate, CRAI 1990, 144-66;

Bellinger and Welles = A.R.Bellinger and C.B.Welles, A Third-Century Contract of Sale from Edessa inOsrhoene, YCS 5, 1935, 95-134;

Goldstein = Jonathan A.Goldstein, The Syriac Bill of Sale from Dura-Europos, JNES 25.1, 1966, 1-16.2 Bellinger and Welles; Goldstein; C.B.Welles, R.O.Fink and J.F.Gilliam, The Parchments and Papyri,

vol. 5, part 1 of The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Final Report, ed. Ann Perkins, New Haven, 1959, 142-9.The Dura document is referred to in publications either by its original inventory number, D.Pg. 20, or by thecatalogue number DP 28; the latter alternative will be adopted here.

3 A good general account of the problems of this period, many of which remain intractable, can be foundin A.T.Olmstead, The mid-Third Century of the Christian Era, CP 37, 1942, 241-62, 398-420. D.S.Potter,Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire: A Historical Commentary on the ThirteenthSibylline Oracle, Oxford, 1990, is a recent treatment concentrating on events seen from a Middle Easternperspective.

188 St.K.Ross

Description of the documentsThe two Syriac documents, labeled A and B by Teixidor, are of the type known as the

"double document." The practice of recording legal transactions, sales, marriage contractsand the like in this form is known elsewhere in the Levant and in Egypt. In Egypt, however,the number of double documents known, in comparison to the huge volume of the papyruscorpus, is so small as to make it all but certain that at least under Roman rule, the practicewas much more common in the Semitic Near East, where indeed it may have originated.4

This impression, which was already supported by the frequency of the practice at Dura-Europos, is reinforced by the 15 or so recently-published double documents from the"Babatha archive" in Judea and by the nine double documents out of a total of 21 from theMiddle Euphrates find.5 The new texts resemble other double documents in that the main textis presented in full on the lower portion of the parchment sheet, while an abbreviated orsummarized version appears at the top.6 This upper text was folded up and sealed with stringto serve as a safeguard against any tampering with the open text.7

Document A, dating to December 240 C.E., is in essence a receipt recording the dischargeof a debt by one Worod, son of Nisharyahab, acting on behalf of a certain Bagesh∑, perhapsa relative by marriage.8 The document makes preliminary reference to an earlier transactionout of which the debt arose. This reference has led to some disjunction between the upperand lower texts, for in copying the terms of the receipt for the upper text, the scribe ran outof room before he reached the section recording the essential point of the secondtransaction.9 The first nine lines (out of 27) of the lower text of Document B, dating toSeptember 242 C.E., have been published. This document concerned a lease by the sameWorod of property which had been pledged or mortgaged to him by the lessee's father.10

The two documents, though separated by less than two years, contrast strikingly in theways in which they characterize the city and its status. They offer powerful testimony to thechanges that were occurring in this area of the Empire during a crisis caused by domesticupheavals and outside pressure from the increasingly powerful Sassanid Persian regime.These changes had already been signaled to some extent by DP 28, of 243 C.E., and bynumismatic evidence from Edessa.

4 E.Koffmahn, Die Doppelurkunden aus der Wüste Juda, vol. 5 of Studies on the Texts of the Desert ofJudah, ed. J. van der Ploeg, Leiden 1968, 21-22; Naphtali Lewis, ed., The Documents from the Bar KochbaPeriod in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri, Jerusalem, 1989, 8.

5 Welles et. al. (n. 2 above) 14; Lewis (n. 4 above) 6-10; Feissel and Gascou 539, 557-61.6 This is plainly the case with Document A. The seven lines of the upper text of Document B have not

yet been published.7 See below, pp. 204-205 for more on the general practice.8 Deux documents 153-4.9 Ibid. 147, II. 1-10 of scriptura interior; 152. This truncation of the upper text apparently did not affect

the document's legal validity, and may clarify aspects of Edessa's archival practice: below, pp. 204-205.10 Ibid. 154-5,ll. 6-9.

The Last King of Edessa 189

Chronology of Edessa's last kings: The problemThe "freedom" of Edessa. The dating prescript of DP 28 places it in the month Iyyar of

the Seleucid year 554, or May 243 C.E. The document is also dated by the regnal year ofGordian III, by the consular year and by the unusual formula "year 31 of the freedom of theillustrious Antoniana Edessa, Colonia Metropolis Aurelia Alexandria."11 In Bellinger'sopinion, which has not been disputed, these words "must mean that the city was a colonia atthe time the contract was drawn up, and strongly implies that it had been a colonia for 31years, that is, since 213/14 A.D."12 The colony's titulature, which seems to derive from theEmperor Caracalla, supports this conclusion, as does Cassius Dio's report that Caracalladeposed Edessa's King Abgar, apparently putting an end to or interrupting the Abgariddynasty.13

The "freedom" that Edessa celebrated with its colonial era would thus be its freedom fromthe monarch's rule. As Bellinger noted, this is an unusual way to phrase the change in thecity's status, particularly since Edessa was not "free" from Roman rule. Suchconsiderations, however, were not enough to stop many cities from adopting, say, aPompeian era when they came under Roman rule.14 Before Pompey's arrival, cities whichhad been granted autonomy by the Seleucids would mark the year of that grant with a newera.15 It is, however, extremely unusual, if not unknown, for a city to name such an era thatof its "freedom," as a search of the indices of IGR and SEG will show.16 A partial parallel isprovided by the coins issued in the previous century by the short-lived Jewish Revolt, whichbore Hebrew legends such as "Year One of the Redemption of Israel" and "Year 2 of theFreedom of Israel."17 The legends combined with the archaic Paleo-Hebrew script in whichthey were written, and with militantly Jewish types, to allow the coins to serve as vehicles of

11 Editors generally correct the scribe's spelling, e.g. by printing Anton<in>iana, but this does not seemnecessary. Cf. J. and L.Robert, Bull.Epigr. 1974, no. 577: "Il ne s'agit pas ... de corriger ÉAntvnianÆ enÉAntvninianÆ, comme s'il y avait en erreur du lapicide, mais de constater que la première forme est unecontraction fréquente de la seconde, pour ce qui se rapporte aux 'Antonins,' avant tout à Caracalla et à Elagabal…;" numerous examples supplied.

12 Bellinger and Welles 143.13 Dio 78.12.1. The nomen (or praenomen) Antoninus, which evoked fond remembrances of the days of

the "five good emperors," was a powerful tool which Septimius Severus and his successors, especiallyCaracalla, used to garner support among the troops and populace - HA Sev. 19.3-4; Car. 9.2; Macr. 3.9;Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography, Oxford, 1971, 78-88. The presence of "Alexandria" in the colony'stitulature may reflect Caracalla's apparent obsession with Alexander - Hdn. 4.8.1-3; Dio 78.7-8; Bellinger andWelles 143, n. 4.

14 Henri Seyrig, Antiquités Syriennes, Syria 31, 1954, 79: examples of Pompeian eras.15 Ibid. 78.16 E.J.Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, 2d edition, Ithaca, 1968, 72, gives examples of

such eras, but none of them seems to be expressed in the language of liberation, with the possible exceptionof SEG 33.851, nos. 51-54. This inscription gives a list of Amyzonian magistrates serving éf' o [K]çre!±leuyer≈yh!an (fom Rhodes), but does not use this as an era in the strictest sense. SEG 2.330, from Tyre,is heavily restored and hence suspect.

17 Leo Mildenberg, The Coinage of the Bar Kokhba War, Typos VI, Aarau, Frankfurt and Salzburg,1984, 29-31. The parallel is only partial because here the "freedom" is indeed freedom from Roman rule.

190 St.K.Ross

"propaganda" in the purest sense. The whole package "boldly procaimed a political andcultural renaissance of the Jewish state."18

In the Edessa documents as in the Bar Kochba coinage, and indeed elsewhere in ancientsources, the language of liberation has rhetorical force. In 243 C.E., the reference to thecity's "freedom" was no mere formula. It was pointed and timely. Already before thediscovery of DP 28, an interesting series of bronze coins from the Edessa mint had beenidentified, which proved that there had been a King Abgar on the throne at some time duringthe reign of Gordian III.19 The coins bear images of both Gordian and Abgar, identified asBA%ILEU% ABGARO%. In some of them the king appears to pledge fealty to the seatedemperor or to present him with a small Nike. These coins led Bellinger to the conclusionthat, at some time during the reign of Gordian, the native dynasty had been restored to thethrone. The evidence of DP 28, however, indicated to Bellinger that this restored monarchyhad not survived Gordian; it was already gone by the time he died in 244 C.E.20

Reconstruction based on DP 28. Bellinger proposed the following reconstruction:21

In the troubled years after 235 C.E. - perhaps well before 241 - the nearby cities ofNisibis and Carrhae fell to the Sassanids. Testimony to the cities' capture, which put Edessain jeopardy as well, is provided by the Byzantine historians Syncellus and Zonaras.22 Thereis no direct evidence for Edessa's fate at this time; it may have been captured or maintainedits freedom from Persian rule by conciliation or resistance. However, "in the confusion thecolonia [established in 213/14] came to an end, and a native king by right or force assumedthe throne." With Roman attention increasingly focused on the Eastem frontier, Abgar "madean arrangement with the emperor by which Edessa was reestablished as a vassal kingdomsuch as it had been in the days of Septimius Severus."

Under this cooperative arrangement, a heavy output of Abgar-Gordian coins appeared;indeed, according to Bellinger, this coinage alone "supplied the Mesopotamian cities withbronze in the years just before 242." The arrangement, however, apparently lasted only until241, when the Sassanid threat grew and Gordian set out for the East. "It may be that Abgarplayed him false; it may be that he did not arrive soon enough to save Edessa." Whatever thereason, by May 243 Abgar was no longer on the throne, and the magistrates of the colonia ofEdessa were back in charge.

Scholars since Bellinger who have studied Gordian III's eastern policy and the waragainst Shapur I have ordered events differently. Xavier Loriot and, following him, ErichKettenhoffen, concluded that the restoration of the Abgarid dynasty did not precede

18 Ibid. 69; cf. 72.19 Bellinger and Welles 144; G.F.Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia and Persia,

British Museum Catalogue series, London, 1922, 113-17, plates XVI, XVII.20 Others have interpreted DP 28 differently. See below, p. 191.21 Bellinger and Welles 144-6.22 Sync. P361, p. 681; Zonaras 12.18.


Gordian's Persian campaign. Rather, it was a result of Roman successes in that campaign,which regained Carrhae and Nisibis from the Persians.23 Kettenhoffen cites the date of DP28 as proving that the monarchy could not have been restored before 243 C.E., while Loriotjustifiably points out that "aucun texte ne mentionne explicitement la restauration desAbgarides et seules les monnaies nous en ont conservé le souvenir."24 A statement in the12th-century chronicle of Michael the Syrian tallies with the theory of a late restoration of theAbgars. Michael states that the Edessene kingdom was abolished in the fifth year of Philipthe Arab, or the Seleucid year 560 (249 C.E.).25 A new documentary history of the Roman-Persian confrontation adopts the interpretation proposed by Loriot, citing Michael'sstatement.26

Now, however, after the discovery of Syriac Document A from the new archives, thetheory of a late restoration of the Abgarid monarchy seems untenable.

Testimony of the new documentsIn December 240, the following prescript was placed at the head of our Document A:27

"In the month of December of the year 552, the third year of the Emperor Caesar MarcusAntonius Gordianus, Fortunate and Victorious,28 in the second year of King AeliusSeptimius Abgar, son of MaÑnu the pasgriba, son of King Abgar, who was honored with theconsulship at Orhai, the baris city which is the grandmother of all the cities of Mesopotamia.This document was written in Haikl±-Kark± of Sid± the New, of King Abgar, on the 28thday."29

Hence, in December of the Seleucid year 552, in other words December 240 C.E., KingAbgar had already been on the throne of Edessa - called in this document by its Semitic nameOrhai - for more than a year.

The corresponding prescript for Document B reads:30

"In the fifth year of the Emperor Caesar Marcus Antonius Gordianus Pius Augustus, inthe consulship of Vetius Atticus and of Lepidus Praetextatus, in the month of September ofthe year 553 of the former reckoning, and in the year 30 of the freedom of the renowned

23 X.Loriot, Les premières années de la grande crise du IIIe siècle: De l'avènement de Maximin le Thrace(235) à la mort de Gordien III (244), ANRW II.2, 1975, 768-9; E.Kettenhoffen, The Persian Campaign ofGordian III and the Inscriptions of Ý±hpuhr I at the KaÑbe-ye Zartost, in: Armies and Frontiers in Roman andByzantine Anatolia, BAR International Series 156, 153-4.

24 Kettenhoffen (n. 23 above) 154; Loriot (n. 23 above) 768, n. 822. H.J.W.Drijvers, Hatra, Palmyra undEdessa, ANRW II.8, 1977, 882, comes down in favor of Loriot's interpretation, though with reservations.

25 Michael the Syrian, Chron. 5.5, pp. 77-8 (Syriac).26 Michael H.Dodgeon and Samuel N.C.Lieu, The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars: A.D.

226-363, London and New York, 1991, 35, no. 2.1.4; 355, n.6.27 Deux documents 147, 150, ll. 1-7.28 The imperial epithets are rendered in Syriac: GDYÉWZKYÉ.29 On the terms pasgriba and baris see below, pp. 192 and 199.30 After Deux documents 154-5,ll. 1-6.

192 St.K.Ross

Edessa Antoniana Colonia Metropolis Aurelia Alexandria. This document was written inMarcopolis Thera, during the priesthood of Marcus Aurelius Antahyrus, son of Aggai, andduring the archonship of Marcus Aurelius Alexandrus, son of Subas, and of Baratha son ofShalamsin, on the first day of the month."

The arrangement and language of this prescript and of that of DP 28 are remarkablysimilar. There are also, obviously, significant differences between the language used hereand that of Document A. These will come under discussion presently, but to begin with, weare concerned strictly with the chronological conclusions made possible by the two newdocuments. Many of these have already been pointed out in Teixidor's two articles; whatfollows may be considered a refinement of his views.

Since Document A dates from the second year of Abgar's reign, we can now say withnear certainty that he took the throne sometime between December 238 and December 239.The colony was reestablished by September 242, the date of Document B. The datingprescript of DP 28 puts it in the second term as strategos of Marcus Aurelius Abgar, son ofHafsai, and it has been suggested that this indicates the renewed colonia had been inexistence for at least one year, therefore since May 242 or earlier.31 As was also recognized,however, Abgar's first strategia could have come in the colony's prior existence, before themonachy's restoration. Hence we can set a maximum term of three years, nine months -December 238 to September 242 - for the rule of Abgar. Although his reign was certainlymore than one year long, we cannot be any more specific as to its minimum duration, sincenone of our documents provides a date for the reestablishment of the colonia.

Abgar: The end of a dynastyMaÑnu the pasgriba. The filiation supplied for Abgar in Document A enables us to go

beyond dating his reign, and to establish his place in the Abgarid dynasty. He is identified asthe son of "MaÑnu the pasgriba" and the grandson of another king named Abgar. The lastAbgar known by independent witness is the king who was deposed by Caracalla. The datesseem to fit roughly if we assume that this was the grandfather of our Abgar.

It seems most likely that the deposed grandfather was the eighth Abgar, known as "theGreat".32 This may help us understand the term used to identify MaÑnu, which Teixidorrendered as "prince héritier."33 Pasgriba (Iranian pasagriw) is a term known from Syriac,Aramaic, Middle Persian and Sogdian texts and inscriptions, usually in contexts whichrequire it to be translated as "successor to the throne" or "vice regent."34 In a series ofsecond-century C.E. Aramaic inscriptions from Hatra, women of the royal family are

31 Bellinger and Welles 145.32 For an alternative possibility see below, pp. 193-194.33 Deux documents 150, 161.34 André Maricq, Hatra de Sanatrouq, Syria 32, 1955, 276-80; Paul-Hubert Poirier, L'hymne de la perle

des Actes de Thomas, Homo Religiosus 8, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1981, 212-23.


honored, among other things, for being "mother of the pasgriba (or pazgriba)."35 In anotherinscription from the same site, Hatra's King Sanatruq is called "father of the pasgri<b>a".36

At Edessa itself, a similar inscription has long been known.37 It honors a Queen Shalmath,wife of a king whose name is unreadable, and daughter of the pasgriba MaÑnu. It is temptingto identify her father with our MaÑnu, but the name was common in the royal family and inEdessa generally. Segal speculates that she was Abgar the Great's wife, a possibility alsoenvisioned by Maricq.38 For Teixidor, she was both sister and wife of the Abgar who ruledin 240 C.E.39 There can be no certainty.

What seems clear is that the father of our Abgar was, not king of Edessa, but thedesignated successor to, or vice regent for, his father Abgar. This reinforces the likelihoodthat the elder Abgar was the one removed by Caracalla. For once Rome had "subdued"Edessa, there was no longer a throne for the heir to mount. It looks as if he died before 239,a successor who never succeeded.40 Presumably if he had been alive at that date it wouldhave been he and not his son who took power in Edessa.

Another possible reference to MaÑnu the pasgriba is found on a coin bearing on theobverse a bearded portrait of a King Abgar and on the reverse that of a bearded man wearinga tiara, with the legend MANNO% PAI%.41 Hill was puzzled by the apparent identificaitonof this mature individual as a pa›!, but since his work it has been generally accepted thatPAI% is an abbreviation of pasgriba.42 These coins, which could not have been issued afterCaracalla's seizure of the Edessene king, make it look as if Abgar took his son as a "second"or colleague in power before losing his throne.

"Abgarus Severus"? Another series of Edessene coins, and the anonymous eighth-centurychronicle attributed to "Dionysius of Tell Mahré," introduce a complication.43 Although theabsolute dates given in "Dionysius" (the "era of Abraham") are seriously flawed, it has beenconsidered possible to make something of the figures he gives for the lengths of theEdessene kings' reigns.44 After recording the 35-year reign of Abgar the Great, "Dionysius"reports:

35 Maricq (n. 34 above) 1, 9-10.36 Poirier (n. 34 above) 216, no. 195.37 Derniers rois 221; J.B.Segal, Edessa: 'The Blessed City', Oxford, 1970, 19; H.J.W.Drijvers, Old-

Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions, Semitic Study Series, new series no. 3, Leiden, 1972, 19-21; F.C.Burkitt,The 'Throne of Nimrod,' Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 28, 1906, 149-55.

38 Segal (n. 37 above) 26; Maricq (n. 34 above) 7.39 Derniers rois 221.40 Ibid.41 Hill (n. 19 above) ci.42 First suggested by Burkitt (n. 37 above) 153.43 I.B.Chabot, ed., Chronicum Anonymum Pseudo-Dionysianum Vulgo Dictum, Corpus Scriptorum

Christianorum Orientalium, Scriptores Syri, ser. 3, vol. 1-2.44 Bellinger and Welles 148.

194 St.K.Ross

"At Orhai, Abgar Severus ruled together with his son (’MLK ’BGR SWRS ‘M BRH),one year and seven months. And after him ruled Ma‘nu his son (’MLK M‘NW BRH), fortwenty-six years."45

Thirty years later (in the "year of Abraham" 2233), "Dionysius" records both the death ofCaracalla and the end of the Edessene monarchy, saying, "They were subjected to the powerof the Romans from this time forward."46

The "Abgar Severus" who ruled for one year and seven months "with his son" may be thesame individual who appears on coins dating from the reign of Caracalla, with the legend%EOUH ABGARO%.47 This king, whose coin portraits show that he was a young man,would in that case be the one deposed by Caracalla after ruling briefly in succession to AbgarVIII; hence he would be Abgar IX. This theory has won some adherents, but some of theprops underpinning it are weak:

1. Hill, in publishing the coins of Edessa, used the reports of Cassius Dio to support theview that Abgar's removal (on the pretext of cruelty to his subjects) came shortly after hisaccession.48 In this case Dio's text surely cannot bear the weight of the argument. The closejuxtaposition between the statement about Abgar's "cruelty" and the report of his removal byCaracalla results from the way modern editors have interwoven the text of Xiphilinus withthe Excerpta Valesiana.49

2. If the "young" Severus Abgar of the coins did succeed to the throne upon Abgar theGreat's death, only to be removed less than two years later, it may be doubted whether hecould have had a son old enough to take as a colleague. Certainly this young king cannot bethe bearded Abgar on the obverse of the MANNO% PAI% coins.

3. Although the similarity between the name of "Abgarus Severus" in "Dionysius" and theSeverus Abgar of the coins is suggestive, it was Abgar VIII who was most closelyassociated with Septimius, having been received by the emperor at Rome with an escort thatbecame legendary for its magnificence.50 Therefore it is plausible that in writing "AbgarusSeverus," "Dionysius" was referring specifically to Abgar VIII.

It seems impossible to arrive at a theory that accounts for all the evidence withoutcontradiction, even after discounting the absolute dates given by "Dionysius." For instance,since the span of time from Septimius Severus's investiture to Caracalla's death was only 24years, it is not possible that an Abgar Severus was succeeded by a Ma‘nu who ruled for 26years, until the monarchy was abolished in the year of Caracalla's death. The figure of 26years, however, coincides well with the span between Abgar's removal and the

45 "Dionysus" (n. 43 above) vol 1, p. 128.46 Ibid. p. 131.47 Hill (n. 19 above) ciii, pl. XIV.10.48 Hill (n. 19 above) ci-cii.49 Dio 78.12.1a, 12: Exc. Val. 369 (p. 746) and Xiph. 332. 7-16 R.St., respectively, with Boissevain's

note ad.loc.50 Dio 80.16.2.


reestablishment of the Abgarid monarchy as established by Document A. Therefore thatdocument provides support for the traditional view that Ma‘nu actually had a shadow rule ofthat length, from 214 to 240.51

The case of "Abgarus Severus" is more intractable. Teixidor posits that the year and sevenmonths attributed to this individual actually belong to the Septimius Abgar of Document A,by an easily explained confusion of names.52 This solution, however, requires us todismiss, not only the absolute chronology in "Dionysius," but also the ordering of the kingsas given in the chronicle. It seems preferable to preserve the order by concluding that thejoint rule described by "Dionysius" is that of Abgar VIII and his son Ma‘nu. It may be thatAbgar nominated Ma‘nu as regent upon his removal from the throne, being unaware of thefate of his kingdom.53 More probably, however, Abgar took Ma‘nu as a colleague beforebeing dethroned. "Dionysius's" year and seven months may represent the time of joint rulebefore the dethronement, after which Ma‘nu remained the heir presumptive.

This reconstruction makes sense of the text of "Dionysius," as far as it goes. Two points,however, still call for explanation: first, the coins of the young Severus Abgar and second,"Dionysius's" omission of the Abgar of 240 C.E. from his king-list. For the reasons givenabove (p. 194, especially point no. 2), it is difficult to accept the rule of a young Abgarbefore 214. Therefore some explanation such as Teixidoes - that the Romans promoted arival to Ma‘nu who had "un règne ephémère" before the establishment of the new colonia -must contain the answer.54

"Dionysius's" omission of the last Abgar - whom we may call Abgar IX - is also difficultto explain. However, as we have seen "Dionysius" believed that the Abgarid dynasty cameto an end in the year of Caracalla's death, 217 C.E. He placed all 26 years of Ma‘nu's"reign" before this, and described Edessa as being subjected to the rule of Rome after it. Ifthe reign of Abgar IX was little over a year in length (above, pp. 191-192), it may not haveleft enough of a record to be included in "Dionysius's" annals. Again, the chronographermay have confused the original establishment of the colonia with its reestablishment ca. 242CE, helping to explain the omission of our Abgar. None of these explanations iscompletely satisfactory, but the truth must lie somewhere among them.

The chronology of Gordian III's Persian warThe range of possible dates for the reign of Abgar IX makes it inconceivable that the brief

restoration of the Edessene monarchy resulted from Roman military successes in 243 C.E.(above, p. 191). As we have seen, the suggestion that it did so result was offered as analternative to Bellinger's thesis, that Abgar had somehow seized power in the confusion that

51 Deux documents 161.52 Ibid.53 Ibid.54 Deux documents 160-61.

196 St.K.Ross

prevailed after 235, and then turned to Rome for support (above, p. 190). By examining theevents of this period, and comparing the new chronology for Abgar, we may be able todecide whether or not Bellinger's theory should be reinstated, and in particular, to settle thevexed question of whether Edessa ever fell to the Persians as other cities in its region did.55

Edessa's resistance to Persian conquest. The casus belli for the Persian campaign ofGordian III is thought to have been the loss of Hatra, whose date can be fixed, fairlyconfidently, at the spring of 241 C.E.56 In the following year, according to the HistoriaAugusta, Gordian III opened the gates of the Temple of Janus, signifying the formalbeginning of hostilities.57 In fact, the eastern frontier had been in an unsettled state sincewell before Gordian became emperor in 238. As is proven by three Latin militaryinscriptions from Hatra, that city had been garrisoned by Roman troops as early as 235C.E.58 The troops were still there in the first year of Gordian's reign, when the Sassanidsinvaded northern Mesopotamia and took both Carrhae and Nisibis.59 The poignant gaffitofrom Dura-Europos, kat°bh §f' ≤m«n P°r!h! - dated to 239 C.E. - testifies to thewidespread disruption of those years.60

It is precisely in this context, between December 238 and December 239, that DocumentA now forces us to place the beginning of Abgar's reign. Since this king's coinage showsthat he was friendly to Rome, it seems doubtful that Edessa fell to the same Persian offensivethat took Carrhae and Nisibis.

Rise and fall of a king. In the critical strategic situation of 238-9, the Persian threat wasundoubtedly keenly felt at Edessa. The occasion was ripe for the reassertion of power by alocal warlord. It is easy to imagine Abgar, scion of one of the city's leading families, comingto the fore in the defensive effort, and demanding in return the recognition of his ancestralprerogatives.61

Document B proves that Edessa was reestablished as a colonia by September 242 (above,p. 192). At this time the armies of Gordian III and the Praetorian Prefect Timesitheus wereon their way East to meet the Persian threat. It is unlikely that the Roman forces reachedSyria by September, particularly in view of the report that they engaged in battles with

55 Cited as one remaining puzzle of the war's history: Kettenhoffen (n. 23 above) 153; cf. Loriot (n. 23above) 769 n. 820.

56 Loriot (n. 23 above) 761-2; Kettenhoffen (n. 23 above) 152. The date is narrowed to winter-spring240/1 by a Manichaean parchment codex: A.Henrichs and L.Koenen, Ein griechischer Mani-Codex, ZPE 5,1970, 125-32.

57 HA Gord. 23.3, 5-6.58 D.Oates, A Note on Three Latin Inscriptions from Hatra, Sumer 11, 1955, 39-43; A.Maricq, Les

dernières années de Hatra: l'alliance romaine, Syria 34, 1957, 288-96.59 Sync. P361, p. 681; Zonaras 12.18; Loriot (n. 23 above) 759-60.60 SEG 7. 743b; P.V.C.Bauer, ed., The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Preliminary Report of the Fourth

Season of Work, Oct. 1930-March 1931, New Haven, 1933, 112-14.61 Alternatively, Abgar IX may have been a usurper who adopted the traditional Edessene royal lineage. In

either case, the troubles of 238-9 provide a fitting context.


hostile forces in Moesia during their progress.62 A recent study concludes that the armyprobably did not reach Antioch until the last months of 242.63 It was in the spring of 243that the Roman army crossed the Euphrates and recaptured Carrhae, then Nisibis, in themeantime defeating the Persians in a major battle at Rhesaina (Ras el ‘Ain) near Edessa.64

One of the coins of Abgar IX and Gordian portrays the king presenting the emperor with asmall Nike figure.65 It is natural to assume that this commemorates a Roman victory, andbefore the discovery of our documents the most likely candidate was the victory of Rhesaina.We now see, however, that Abgar was no longer on the throne by the date of that battle. TheNike may instead commemorate the successful activity of the Roman army on its way East,or it may be anticipatory.

There is yet a third possibility, which on due reflection seems perfectly likely. It may bethat the coin refers not to victories of the Roman army, but to those of Abgar himself -victories that saved Edessa for the empire and were thus fitting offerings to the emperor.

The greatest difficulty, however, is in the portrayal of an encounter between the king andthe emperor. Abgar may have been on the throne as late as summer 242, but it is difficult toget the Roman armies to Syria that early. The problem is solved if we assume that Gordianhimself traveled separately and arrived in Syria before the troops, which we know wereunder Timesitheus's command.66 Otherwise, the two new Syriac documents force acomplete reevaluation of the chronology of Gordian's eastern campaign.

Even more mysterious than the reasons for Abgar IX's coronation is the question of theend of his reign. To judge from his coins and his recognition of Roman sovereignty inDocument A, this king was no rebel. If the reasons suggested above for his enthronementare anywhere near correct, he was in fact a defender of the Roman order against Persianattack. It is unlikely that Gordian deposed him upon the arrival of Roman forces in Syria,since it seems to have been Gordian's regime that recognized Abgar; and we now see that thecolonia's reestablishment came too early to be in any way connected with the rise of thefuture Emperor Marcus Julius Philippus ("the Arab"). The regime of Abgar seems to havehad an Orientalizing bent, which will be the next subject of investigation. This may providesome basis for believing that the Roman authorities perceived Abgar as disloyal and henceremoved him from his influential position. Yet today we have no more solid material thanhad Bellinger on which to base a hypothesis (cf. above, p. 190) - except for the knowledgethat, at the time of Abgar's removal, the strategic situation that apparently brought him to thethrone had not changed. Until Spring 243, the Persians still occupied Carrhae and Nisibis,

62 HA Gord. 26.4.63 Loriot (n. 23 above) 767. Despite the contrary (and unique) testimony of HA Gord. 26.5-6, it is

unlikely that the Persians ever took Antioch before or during this campaign.64 HA Gord. 26.6; Sync. 681; Zonaras 12.18; Amm.Marc. 23.5.17; Loriot (n. 23 above) 768-9.65 Hill (n. 19 above) 113, nos. 136-9.66 HA Gord. 27.2.

198 St.K.Ross

and Edessa was still threatened. This was not a propitious time to remove a loyal localleader.

A modest proposal. In this quandary, it is perhaps permissible to abandon the mindsetthat tends to view everything in terms of Roman imperial patronage and policy. There areconceivable and plausible reasons for the replacement of one regime by another, that do notrequire invoking the hand of Rome. If indeed Abgar was a leader in the defense of the cityand the region, he may have fallen in a confrontation with the Persians before he had the timeto arrange for a successor. On the other hand, as Document B and DP 28 show, Edessa hada local aristocracy ready and able to step in and assume leadership in the renewed coloniaafter Abgar's removal.67 Possibly that removal was the work of members of this group,who loudly proclaimed their loyalty to Rome after taking the reins of power. Thesesuggestions do not lay to rest the mystery, but they broaden the list of suspects.

Edessa and RomeThe casts of characters of Document B and DP 28 bear the clear stamp of Roman

influence. Four out of 12 individuals mentioned in Document B, and seven out of 19 in DP28, proclaim their Roman citizenship by appending to their names "Aurelius" or "MarcusAurelius".68 The names are clear indications that these people's citizenship derived from theblanket grant contained in Caracalla´s Constitutio Antoniniana. Two of the city's magistratesin DP 28 are also identified as HPWS RHMWS - members of Rome's equestrian order.These indications harmonize with the consular dating, the era of "freedom" and the city'stitulature ("Colonia Metropolis Aurelia Alexandria," etc.) to evoke an almost ostentatious airof pro-Roman sentiment in Edessa after Abgar IX.69

Docment A offers a number of points of contrast. The king, Aelius Septimius Abgar, isthe only person who bears a Roman name. There are 19 other individuals mentioned, all ofwhom go by purely Semitic or Iranian names, even though some of them, at least, weresurely free under the Constitutio Antoniniana to use Roman nomina if they so desired.Apparently under the regime of Abgar it was not fashionable to declare one's affection forRome so openly.

The language and arrangement of Document A's prescript reinforce this impression. Fromthe outset, the formula is different; rather than starting with the regnal year of the emperorand the consular date, Document A begins with the Seleucid Year 552. It does not bother to

67 It is perhaps worth noting that one of these, a strategos, in 243 CE, was also an Abgar, son of Ma‘nu(DP 28,1. 6). His grandfather's name, however (Aggai), shows that he was not the same as King Abgar, sonof Ma‘nu.

68 The count includes both the eponymous magistrates and the names of fathers and grandfathersmentioned in both documents.

69 "Colonia Edessa" also displayed its westernization with its system of dating by magistrates: archons orstrategoi (Document B and DP 28, respectively) and an eponymous priest (the word read as ‘MRWT’,"residency" by Welles and Teixidor is actually KMRWT’, "priesthood": Goldstein 2,4).


characterize this era as "the former reckoning," as does Document B. It does give theemperor's regnal year next, but Gordian receives, not his standard Greek epithetstransliterated into Syriac (’WSBWS SBSTWS = eÈ!ebØ! !eba!tÒ! as in Document B, butpurely Syriac epithets (GDY’ WZKY’ = Fortunate and Victorious). This is followed by theregnal year and filiation of Abgar, and eventually by the phrase "at Orhai, the baris citywhich is the grandmother of all the cities of Mesopotamia." This phrase is the equivalent of"Edessa Antoniana Colonia Metropolis Aurelia Alexandria" in Document B. In it the mostobvious contrast is the use of the original native name Orhai rather than the transplantedname Edessa. The rest of the terminology is apparently an attempt to convey the idea ofmetropolis without resorting to transliteration. The term baris, however, contains anadditional overtone. A word which made its way into Hellenistic Greek apparently from theconquered Near Eastern lands, baris means "stronghold" but was used originally to signify afortified (royal) residence, something like a "chateau."70 Its use here is apparently a re-borrowing from the Greek, since the word does not appear in this form in any Semitic text.

Thus, the language of Document A's prescript and the lack of Roman nomina for theindividuals mentioned in the document are archaizing, in the sense that they deliberately harkback to Edessa's heyday as the capital of the Roman-allied kingdom of Osrhoene, all whileduly recognizing the emperor's sovereignty.

Apropos of DP 28, Welles wrote, "The expulsion of the dynasty and the formation of aRoman colonia in A.D. 214 ... meant a reversal of [Orhai's] Oriental inclination, but itseffect was delayed for thirty years.... At the date of the contract, A.D. 243, Edessa was justbeginning to face West again."71 Since we still have no documents from the period of thecolonia's life before Abgar IX, we have no basis on which to evaluate the truth of thisstatement. The Romanizing fashion among Edessa's townspeople may have been delayeduntil after Abgar IX's removal, or it may have been interrupted by his reign only to beenthusiastically resumed after it. The only thing that is clear is the contrast between anapparent Eastern atmosphere under Abgar and the West-facing attitude after him.

Abgar's "consulship." In first publishing part of Document A, Teixidor translated thephrase MYQR BHPTY’ B’RHY as "honoré comme consularis à Edesse," and concludedthat Abgar was a provincial governor.72 In the full publication of the text, however, hetranslated the phrase as "honoré du consulat à Orhai," and took it as indicating that Abgarhad received the honorific ornamenta consularia.73 The phrase is puzzling and interesting,both because of what it may tell us about Abgar's own relationship with Rome and because it

70 Ernest Will, Qu'est-ce qu'une baris?, Syria 64, 1987, 253-9.71 Bellinger and Welles 125.72 Derniers rois 220-222.73 Deux documents 161-2. It will be seen in what follows that I prefer the second translation to the first,

but I lean toward the earlier interpretation.

200 St.K.Ross

has already been used to support the suggestion that Septimius Odaenathus of Palmyra alsoreceived the ornamenta.74

A group of inscriptions from Palmyra, some of which are dated 257/8 C.E., callOdaenathus lamprÒtato! ÍpatikÒ! (NHYR’ HPTYQ’) .7 5 This phrase has beenvariously interpreted. The most natural reading would be that Odaenathus was indeedgovernor of Syria Phoenice, or part of it, in or around 257/8. This has been disputed,however, and while some have seen a reference to the consular ornamenta others havesuggested that Odaenathus at one time held a suffect consulship.76 The Palmyrene dynastmay have been adlectus inter consulares. This seems unlikely, however, for in anotherinscription he is lamprÒtato! !unklhtikÒ! but not ÍpatikÒ!.77

It is understandable, given this uncertainty, that the case of Abgar was seized as anopportunity better to understand that of another eastem monarch of the mid-third century.However, as Teixidor realized in modifying his translation, the Syrian HPTY’ used ofAbgar derives from the Greek Ípate¤a , not from ÍpatikÒ! as does the PalmyreneHPTYQ’. The two cases are therefore not exactly parallel, and whatever we conclude aboutAbgar does not necessarily apply to Odaenathus. Furthermore, the few texts which refer, ormay refer, to grants of consular ornamenta to native dynasts under the Empire never say thatthe Kings received the consulship itself; in Greek texts the beneficiaries are said to receivetimå! Ípatikã!.78 The language of Document A differs significantly.

The word Ípate¤a can mean a governor's jurisdiction even when exercised by a non-senator, as it does in the first Greek document published from the Mesopotamian corpus.79

This petition of 245 C.E., addressed to Julius Priscus while he was exercising judicialpowers at Antioch, describes Priscus as di°pvn tØn Ípate¤an.80 It may be that the word isused similarly in the case of Abgar. Abgar, however, is said to have been honored by thegrant of Ípate¤a specifically in Orhai. This does not conflict with the picture of his careerthat has been drawn above. Having come to the rescue by defending Edessa successfullyagainst Persian attack, it would seem that Abgar obtained recognition of his civil and militaryauthority so that he was, within the city of Edessa, both king in his own right and governorby Roman authority. This is only a tentative suggestion, but it seems to make the best sensepossible of the fragments of evidence available.

74 Potter (n. 3 above) 389-90.75 M.Gawlikowski, Les princes de Palmyre, Syria 62, 1985, 254-5.76 PLRE 1.638, s.v. Septimius Odaenathus; cf. F.Millar, Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian, JRS

61, 1971, 8; Magie RRAM 2.1569, n. 32.77 Gawilowski (n. 75 above) 253.78 Dio 60.8.2; cf. Dio 78.13.1, Sync. 717.20.79 Feissel and Gascou 545-57.80 Ibid. 547 l. 3.


The Seleucid year at EdessaThe date of Document A - December of the Seleucid year 552, or 240 C.E. - and the

nature of the transaction described therein, permit some observations about the calendar inuse at Edessa during this period. The pertinent information is contained in lines 7-25 of thedocument:81

"I, Bagesh∑, son of Abgar, son of Shamish∑, of the village of Mihr∑, an employee ofSha‘id∑ the of Shalm±n, freely declare to Worod, the son of Nishryahab, of Beth Pourin,resident at New Kark±, the contents of the document which Bagesh∑ son of Shamash‘aqab,son of Taim∑, of New Kark± of Sid±, wrote, and in which Batnanaï, Bagesh∑'s wife, wentsurety before Sha‘id∑, the fodder contractor. And he (Bagesh∑) made known to him in thisdocument that what was owed to Sha‘id∑ the contractor, he would give him at the end ofNovember or the beginning of December of the year in which the document was written, andthat, if when this time had passed he had not given it (to him), the same Bagesh∑, son ofShamash‘aqab, would give Sha‘id∑ the contractor a datio for what which was owed (to him):150 denarii.82 And it was written there that if he did not give these 150 denarii they wouldincrease by three denarii for each month elapsed. And this document was written in themonth of September in the year 551, on the 18th day. Now I declare to Worod that sinceSha‘id∑ the contractor has demanded (his debt) from Bagesh∑ and the said Bagesh∑ was notpresent, I have received from Worod the 150 denarii which the document stipulated andcited, and I have drawn up this present document ... so that he may exact them fromBagesh∑ or his heirs according to the right which exists on account of the alliance."83

The document describes this sequence of events:1. September 551: Bagesh∑ contracts obligation to Sha‘id∑2. [date unspecified]: Sha‘id∑ demands payment.3. [date unspecified]: Worod makes payment on Bagesh∑'s behalf.4. December 552 (240 C.E.): Bagesh∑ son of Abgar draws up Document A.The nature of Bagesh∑ 's original obligation to Sha‘id∑ is not mentioned, but it was

clearly not a monetary debt. Given the nature of Sha‘id∑'s business, we may guess that itwas a certain quantity of grain, for the cultivation of which Sha‘id∑ had let a subcontract.84

The present argument concerns the date of that subcontract.

81 After Deux documents 150-51.82 Datio in solutum: "The payment of a thing other than that which was originally due to the creditor

who accepts it as a discharge of the former obligation." - Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of RomanLaw, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society vol. 43, part 2, 1953, 424; cf. Deux documents153.

83 The mention of Bagesh∑’s wife as fellow-surety for the original obligation makes it likely that the"alliance" mentioned here is a matrimonial one between Worod and the family of Bagesh∑.

84 Sha‘id∑ 's role evokes that of a civilian or perhaps a member of the armed forces charged withsupplying the Roman army with grain, Deux documents 152-3.

202 St.K.Ross

Observing that the original agreement took place in the Seleucid year before that ofDocument A, Teixidor quite naturally places it in the previous Julian year, that is, 239C.E.85 This conclusion is surely incorrect, for a number of reasons.

Although the months named in the document are those of the Roman Julian year, theprimary dating era is not that of Rome, but the Seleucid era. This applies both to the prescriptand to the dates mentioned in the body of the text. The Seleucid era was in use throughoutthe former domains of the Seleucid dynasty, but it was measured differently in the eastemand western parts of the kingdom. The eastern realms used the so-called Babylonianreckoning, under which the year began in April, while in the West (primarily Syria) the"Macedonian" system, with an October New Year, was used. Antioch used the Macedoniansystem, and the documents in the archives of Dura show that it, too, had an October NewYear in the third century C.E.86

Although it has been suggested that Edessa in the third century was an exception to thisrule, it seems more reasonable to assume that it followed general Syrian practice. If theSeleucid year was indeed reckoned in Edessa as starting in October, it is obvious that theoriginal transaction must have taken place, not in September 239, but in September 240 -only a few months before the date of Document A - because the New Year came between thedates of the two documents.

It will be seen that the entire transaction makes much more sense under this assumption.In the first stage, in September 551, Bagesh∑ undertook to provide Sha‘id∑ with a certainamount of grain as soon as it was harvested two months or so later - in the same growingseason; hence the phrase "the year in which the document was written." When the obligationcame due, Sha‘id∑ was unable to collect it (perhaps Bagesh∑ had found a better price for hiscrop in the meantime). Thereupon Sha‘id∑'s employee, another Bagesh∑, collected the datioor penalty of 150 denarii from Worod. This payment must have taken place immediatelyupon demand or soon thereafter, since the interest or penalty for late payment was notassessed. Document A, which is a receipt for that 150 denarii, must have been drawn up atthis time. It strains credulity to posit, as Teixidor does, that Document A was actually writtena year after Worod paid off the debt.87

Arguments for an April New Year. Document A, therefore, suppports the inference thatEdessa, like other Syrian towns, had an October New Year. Previous students of thequestion have concluded otherwise, based on "chronological considerations of a generalcharacter."88 The conclusion was based on the dating prescript of DP 28, on numismaticevidence which suggests the colony may have been founded in January, and on Cassius

85 Deux documents 152-3.86 Bickerman (n. 16 above) 71; Welles et. al. (n. 2 above) 10.87 Deux documents 154.88 Bellinger and Welles 143, n. 3 and 154, n. 64. Teixidor does not refer to Bellinger's findings on this

point, although they would tend to support his own interpretation of Document A.


Dio's report conceming the removal of Abgar. Dio relates that Caracalla imprisoned Abgarand "laid hands on" Osrhoene after tricking the king into coming to him as if to a friend:89

"ÉHpathk∆! går tÚn ba!il°a t«n ÉO!rohn«n AÎgaron …! dØ parå f¤lon aÈtÚn¥kein, ¶peita !ullab∆n ¶dh!e, ka‹ tØn ÉO!rohnØn ˜utv! éba!¤leuton oÔ!anloipÚn §xeir≈!ato."

By Bellinger's reckoning, this could not have happened any earlier than early 214, since,as late as autumn of 213, Caracalla was campaigning in Germany.90 Citing colonial coinswhich bear a device resembling the zodiac sign Aquarius, Bellinger proposes January 214 asthe date of Abgar's fall and the colonia's establishment. On this hypothesis, May 243 couldfall in the colony's 31st year only if the New Year were reckoned from a point in the yearbefore May: hence the conclusion that Edessa had a Babylonian-style April New Year.

It may be felt that this argument places too much weight on Dio's words. The deceptionby which Caracalla captured Abgar may not have involved an actual summons to theemperor's presence, although the Greek ¥kein makes it look as if it did. On the other hand,if the evidence of the coins may be left aside as ambigiuous, we might hypothesize thatAbgar was captured, and the colony established, at some date before January 214. On thisassumption the colony may have used a calendar reckoning the New Year at January 1,which also would put May 243 in the 31st year of the colony.

The entire issue, however, may be a red herring. Bellinger's argument rests on theassumption that the years of the colonial era were the same as those of the Seleucid era.Now, it is plain from the prescripts of both DP 28 and Document B that Edessa did not usethe same years in all its various eras. For the consular year can hardly have been anythingother than the regular Julian year beginning on January 1, whereas all students are inagreement that the New Year of the Seleucid calendar was either in April or in October. Oncethis is admitted, one must admit also that we do not have any idea when the years of thecolonial era began. It seems perfectly likely that these years were reckoned from January 1,according to the standard Roman calendar. This assumption is consistent with the dates inboth DP 28 and Document B, if we may place the colony's creation earlier than January 214- perhaps as late as December 213.

Bellinger's "general" considerations, then, do not help us answer the question of whichsystem Edessa used in counting the years of the Seleucid era. Document A, on the otherhand, when seen in the proper light, is positive evidence that it used the Macedonian system,as is to be expected given the practice in nearby cities.

89 Dio 78.12.12.90 Bellinger and Welles 154, n. 64.

204 St.K.Ross

Additional notes: Double documentsThe upper text of double documents. In its earliest form the double document contained

two complete copies of the same text, one open and one sealed. Both of the new Syriacdocuments present a degenerate form of the practice. The upper text of Document B iswritten in an extremely cursive hand, and no reading has yet been published.91 It is mostprobably an abbreviated summary of the lower text, as the similarly difficult upper text of DP28 was finally shown to be after a period of defiance.92

By contrast, the upper text of Document A is clear enough, but is useless as a summary ofthe main points of the lower text. It gives a fairly full summary of only the first part,breaking off after the description of the first stage.93 Its first two lines, however, do includethe date of the main transaction of Document A and the name of the principal party, Bagesh∑the son of Abgar (Sha‘id∑ 's employee). These elements were apparently sufficient toguarantee the document's legal validity.

Among the double documents of the recently published Babatha archive from the "Caveof Letters" in Judea, there are instances both of extreme abbreviation and of lengthy innertexts which even go beyond the outer texts in places.94 As the editor of the archive observes,in some cases the inner text was so truncated that it could not serve to verify the textualintegrity of the outer text (the original purpose of a sealed inner text); "nor, in fact, was suchverification needed, for in these three instances of extreme abbreviation of the inner text thedocument is a copy taken from an official record, from which verification could be obtainedshould the need arise."95 This parallel may help explain the case of Document A. None ofour documents is a "copy taken from an official record." Lines 18-20 of DP 28, however,prove that Edessa had archives in which copies of transactions were kept:

"Two documents of this sale have been written; one copy of it, retained as a record, is tobe entered in the archives of Antoniana Edessa, the glorious, and the other copy of it is to befor Tiro, the buyer."96

Even though the truncated upper text of Document A could not have served to verify theauthenticity of the main body of the lower text, it could have directed the searcher to theofficial copy of the document in Edessa's archives, which may have been catalogued by firstlines.97 The form of this upper text, thus, suggests the changes in archival practice that mayhave accompanied the evolution of the double document. Since an official registry of copies

91 Deux documents 154.92 Goldstein 2, 6; ll. i and ii.93 See the summary of the four stages: above, p. 201.94 Lewis (n. 4 above) 9.95 Ibid.96 Goldstein 6. It is unlikely that the municipal archives existed only during the life of the colonia; they

were probably maintained under Abgar.97 The use of a text's érxÆ as an identifier, at least in catalogues of literary works, dates back as far as the

P¤nake! of Callimachus, Athen. 6.244a, 13.585b. The practice may be much older.


existed, a full inner text would be otiose. What was needed was a way to find the archivalcopy in case of doubt about the text. Under the rule of Abgar IX, and perhaps during theearlier existence of the colonia, it appears that a first-line cataloguing system was used. Theabbreviated upper texts of DP 28 and Document B, however, suggest that after the colony'sreestablishment, the central log may have contained only a brief description of eachdocument in terms of its date and a short summary of its main points.

Witnessing of double documents. In the standard double document, witnesses signed, notat the bottom as in a normal legal document, but on the verso, one witness signing next toeach of the knots (normally five) in the string that sealed the inner text.98 This practice was afurther guarantee against tampering; it made it impossible to cut off the upper text so that itmight appear the lower text was the only one.99 A curious feature of the witnesses'signatures on the verso of DP 28 is that Mat-Tar‘atha, the seller, signed twice, against thefirst and the last knots.100 Goldstein explain this in terms of the purpose of the signatures onthe verso: Although a double document needed to have a signature against each of its knots,the signatures need not be those of legal witnesses to the transaction (which, of course, theseller was not).101 Mat-Tar‘ath's second signature merely fills a blank space, according toGoldstein.102

It may be more than coincidence that Document A displays a similar feature. On the versowe again find five signatures, one of which is that of Hash± the son of Maththaï - describedon the recto as signing in place of the illiterate Bagesh∑ son of Abgar.103 The first and fifthplaces, however, are occupied by the signature of another Bagesh∑, the son of Taim∑, whois not mentioned elsewhere in the document. Since his father's name is the same as the nameof the grandfather of Bagesh∑ son of Shamash‘aqab, the debtor, he may have been thatBagesh∑'s uncle. It is therefore possible that he was closely involved in the transaction,perhaps having been himself the one who arranged for Worod to pay off his in-law's debt.Like so much else in dealing with these documents, this can only be speculation. Theposition of Bagesh∑'s two signatures, however, and the curious parallel of the signature onDP 28, make it seem as if there is more going on here than the mere filling of spaces.104

Whatever the purpose of this double-signature practice, it appears to have been limited toEdessa. Neither the double documents of Dura nor those of the Babatha archive provide anyparallel.

98 Deux documents 149 (photo of sealed Document A and witnesses' signatures on verso).99 Koffmahn (n. 4 above) 11.100 DP 28 verso, ll. 1 and 5.101 Goldstein 15.102 Ibid.103 Deux documents 151, ll. 26-7.104 It must be admitted that one of the signatures on the verso does indeed look like a "space-filler." It is

that of the fourth witness, who calls himself simply "Abd∑n" - clearly a slave name. Cf. Goldstein 15:"According to some authorities, even the signature of a slave would do."

206 St.K.Ross

Although the process of extracting firm conclusions from the new Syriac documents hasbeen a lengthy one, those conclusions can be succinctly stated. First, Document A proveswithout a doubt that the Abgarid monarchy was indeed restored early in the reign of GordianIII, as Bellinger had proposed on the basis of the coins of the last Abgar. Document Breinforces the evidence of DP 28, to the effect that this king's reign was a short one. The twodocuments together prove that more recent reconstructions, which placed the restoration ofthe monarchy as late as 243 C.E., are incorrect. They show that Abgar IX came to powerjust as the strategic situation in northern Mesopotamia was at its most critical turn, and thathe fell from power (or died) before that crisis had yet abated. These new conclusions leaveus a legacy of questions that are as mysterious as those that have been solved. The newevidence for the chronology of Abgar, however, makes it appear unlikely that Edessa fell tothe Persians along with Carrhae and Nisibis in 239 C.E.

The new Edessene documents have also made possible some miscellaneous observationson administration and archival practice in the city, most notably the conclusion that it usedthe Macedonian year-reckoning system and not the Babylonian, as earlier believed.

It is ironic that of the three early Edessene Syriac documents now known, none wasfound in or near Edessa itself. This fact, besides exhibiting the effects of climate and chancetransmission, bears testimony to the city's importance as a regional commercial center wellbefore its emergence as a cultural force during the Christian period.105

The University of Califomia at Berkeley Steven K.Ross

105 The original version of this paper was written for a Sather Seminar on Roman Syria led by Prof.Glen W.Bowersock in Fall 1991 at the University of California at Berkeley. Hearty thanks are due to Prof.Bowersock, and to Professors Werner Eck and Fergus Millar for their valuable comments on earlier drafts.

Responsibility for any errors and infelicities that remain is entirely my own.